pc_04 21 1992LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
APRIL 21,1992
12:30 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being seven in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the March 10,1992 meeting were approved
as mailed.
III.Members Present:John McDaniel
Ramsay Ball
Kathleen OlesonBillPutnam
Joe Selz
Jim VonTungeln
Emmett Willis,Jr.
Jerilyn Nicholson (arrived after
roll call)
Brad Walker (arrived after roll call)
Ronald Woods (arrived after roll call)
Members Absent:Diane Chachere
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HEARING
AGENDA
APRIL 21,1992
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Z-5544 18018 Kanis Road R-2 to C-3
B.Z-5546 4300 Asher Avenue C-3 to C-4
C.Z-5548 6207 Northmoor Drive R-4 to 0-3
D.Harris Conditional Use Permit (Z-5557)
REZONING ITEMS:
1.Z-5553 6608 Baseline Road R-2 to C-3
2.Z-5556 Crystal Valley Road R-2 to AF
and Colonel Miller Road
OTHER MATTERS:
3.Capitol Keyboard Revised PCD (Z-5178-B)
April 21,1992
ITEM NO 544
Owner:West Little Rock Development
Company and James and
Amanda Moore
Applicant:James Moore
Location:18018 Kanis Road
Request:Rezone from R-2 to C-3
Purpose:Commercial
Size:5.5 acres
Existing Use:Single-Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND Z ING
North —Vacant,zoned R-2
South —Vacant,zoned R-2
East —Vacant,zoned R-2
West —Commercial,zoned C-3
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone 5.5 acres on
the north side of Kanis Road from R-2 to C-3.The site islocatedinAreaIIoftheExtraterritorialAreaandsituated
approximately one-half mile west of the Chenal Parkway.
Currently,the property is being used as a residence,
however,the land has been occupied by a commercial use,
Aloha Pools,within the past year.In addition to the
house,there are three accessory buildings on the property,
including a barn.
Zoning in the immediate vicinity is either R-2 or C-3,with
the site in question abutting a C-3 tract on the west.The
area was zoned to R-2 in the latter part of 1991 and the C-3
rezonings were accomplished this year.The land use pattern
found along Kanis Road is primarily single family,but therearesomenonresidentialusesonKanistotheeastandwest.
Throughout the area there are a number of vacant parcels.
The adopted plan for this part of Area II shows a commercial"node"at the intersection of Kanis and Edswood Roads.The
property in question is within the defined "node".
Therefore,a commercial reclassification of the five acresisappropriateandstaffsupportstheC-3 request.The plan
1
April 21,1992
ITEM NO.:A Z-5544 Cont.
recommends commercial use for properties north and south of
Kanis with a larger percentage of "node"located west of
Edswood Road.There are no outstanding zoning issues
associated with this request.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the C-3 rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 10,1992)
The applicant was represented by Mrs.James Moore.There
were two objectors in attendance.Mrs.Moore spoke briefly
and suggested the opponents be allowed to address the
Commission first.
Anne Childs,18,211 Kanis Road,spoke and said that she and
her husband,John Childs,were opposed to C-3 rezoning.
Ms.Childs then submitted a letter to the Commission and
proceeded to discuss her home,which she described as ahistoricallandmark.She presented some history on the
house and said that a substantial investment has been putintotheproperty.Ms.Childs discussed Kanis Road and saidthatshedidnotwantanotherRodneyParham.Ms.Childs
made some comments about the existing C-3 and asked that the
proposed C-3 request be denied.Ms.Childs said that her
property has 450 feet of frontage on Kanis,and presented
some photos.
Mrs.James Moore spoke again and described the existing
residence on the property,and said it was no longerhistoricalbecauseofvariousadditions.She then discussed
future plans for the Chenal area and described the existing
uses to the west.Mrs.Moore told the Commission that the
single family residence will remain the use for the
foreseeable future.
There were some discussion about the Outer Loop and the
Area II land use plan.
Mrs.James Moore then requested that the item be deferred to
the April 21,1992 hearing.
Anne Childs made some additional comments.
2
April 21,1992
ITEM NO.:A Z-5544 Cont.
A motion was made to defer the item to April 21,1992
meeting.The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,
1 nay and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 21,1992)
The applicant,James Moore,was present.There were seven
objectors in attendance.James Moore spoke and said that he
met with staff several times and was told that his property
was in a designated commercial node on the adopted land use
plan.Mr.Moore told the Commission that C-3 was filed for
based on the information provided by the staff,and there
were no definite plans for the site.He went on to discuss
the Outer Loop and the future land use in the area.
Mr.Moore then described existing uses and said the property
was purchased in January 1992.
Anne Childs,18,211 Kanis Road,spoke and said that she has
talked to other property owners and staff members about the
rezoning request.Ms.Childs then submitted a letter and a
petition with signatures opposed to the C-3.She went on to
say that the plan was general and C-3 would put the area at
risk.Ms.Childs said there were very few restrictions in
the C-3 district,and the rezoning would have a negative
impact on the area.Ms.Childs concluded by asking the
Commission to deny the C-3 request.
James Moore spoke again and said that some of the
nonresidential uses have been in place for a number of
years.Mr.Moore also said that the land was purchased for
investment purchases.
There was a long discussion about staff's modified
recommendation for the site,a POD,and commercial nodes.
Jim Lawson,Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,
addressed the POD recommendation and said there were
problems with C-3.Mr.Lawson also said there was a timing
concern with the rezoning.
Bob Brown,Plans Specialist,told the Commission that the
Landscaping Ordinance did not apply because the property was
outside the city limit.
Daivd Jones addressed the Commission as a private citizen
because he was concerned with the issue.Mr.Jones said
that he agreed with the statements made by Commissioner
Walker,and there was a need to be consistent throughout the
city.Mr.Jones said there were problems with not allowing
C-3 zoning for property that was part of a commercial node
shown on an adopted plan.
3
April 21,1992
IT NO.:A Z-55 4 CQ
Amanda Moore spoke in support of the request.Ms.Moore
said she lived in the area and there were numerous
commercial uses in existence.
Janet Scholl,611 Edswood Road,spoke against the C-3 zoning
and discussed the area.Ms.Scholl said that the existing
businesses did not disrupt the flavor of the neighborhood,
which is primarily residential.Ms.Scholl said Kanis could
become another Rodney Parham if the rezoning was granted.
A motion was made to recommend approval of C-3 rezoning.
The motion was denied by a vote 3 ayes,6 nays,1 absent and
1 abstention (John McDaniel).
4
April 21,1992
ITEM NO.'Z-5546
Owner:Guy Pestino
Applicant:Guy Pestino
Location:4300 Asher Avenue
Request:Rezone from C-3 to C-4
Purpose:Auto Body Rebuilding Shop
Size:0.23 acres
Existing Use:Auto Body Rebuilding Shop
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Single-Family and Office,zoned 0-3 and C-3
South —Mixed Uses,zoned C-3
East —Commercial,zoned C-3
West —Mixed Uses,zoned C-3
STAFF ANALYSIS
4300 Asher Avenue is currently zoned C-3 and the request istoC-4 because of a pending enforcement action by the City.Recently,an individual leased the property from the ownerandbeganoperatinganautobodyshop,which is notpermittedintheC-3 district.A violation notice wasissuedandtheoccupantwasinstructedtofilefortheproperzoningorvacatethepremise.The site is a 50 footlotanda20footclosedright-of-way on the east side.There is one building on the property that has no setbacksonthesouthandwestsides.
Land use in the general vicinity is typical of the AsherAvenuecorridorandincludessinglefamily,office,commercial,auto services,and industrial.The pattern forthepropertiesthatfrontAsherisfairlymixedandrangesfromsmallretailestablishmentstowarehousing.Theexistingindustrialusesarefoundprimarilysouthof AsherAvenueandthesinglefamilyneighborhoodbeginsapproxi-mately one block north of Asher.Current zoning in the areaisR-3,0-3,C-3,I-2 and PCD.I-2 is the predominantzoningdistrictinthearea.
The Oak Forest Neighborhood plan identifies Asher Avenue forcommercialuseandovertheyears,the city has endorsedeitherC-3 or C-4 for the recommended land use pattern.Intheimmediatevicinity,there is no C-4 zoning,however,amajorityoflotsfrontingAsherarezonedI-2,which allows
1
April 21,1992
ITEM NO.:B Z-5546 Cont.
similar uses as C-4.Reclassifying 4300 Asher Avenue to C-4
will not impact the surrounding properties nor dramatically
alter the existing zoning configuration along Asher Avenue.
And finally,C-4 is designed for roadways like Asher,a
major thoroughfare.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Asher Avenue requires a right-of-way 90 feet or 45 feet from
the centerline.The existing right-of-way is deficient,and
a dedication of 15 feet is needed.Because of the
building's placement on the front property line,a franchise
will be necessary for the encroachment after the additional
right-of-way is dedicated.Staff will recommend to the
franchise committee and/or the Board of Directors that the
franchise be granted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the C-4 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 10,1992)
Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred because
the applicant failed to notify the required property owners.
A motion was made to defer the request to April 21,1992
hearing.The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 nays and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 21,1992)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors and the
item was placed on the Consent Agenda.A motion was made to
recommend approval of C-4 as requested.The motion passed
by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
2
April 21,1992
ITEM NO.:C Z-
Owner:Derek and Carolyn Lewis
Applicant:David E.Simmons
Location:6207 Northmoor Drive
Request:Rezone from R-4 to 0-3
Purpose:Daycare Center
Size:0.25 acres
Existing Use:Vacant Residence
SURROUNDING LAND US AND ZONING
North —Office,zoned 0-3
South —Single-Family,zoned R-2
East —Vacant,zoned 0-3
West —YWCA,zoned R-5
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request for 6207 Northmoor Drive is to rezone the lot
from R-4 to 0-3.It is the staff's understanding that the
immediate use for the property is a daycare center.The
owner's long range plans for the location include some typeofofficefunctionandthatiswhyan0-3 reclassification
has been requested.Currently,there is a single story
residence on the lot.
Zoning of the neighborhood includes R-2,R-5,0-3 and C-3.
The property in question abuts 0-3 on the east and across
Northmoor the zoning is 0-3.Land use is made up of single
family residences,churches,a medical clinic,commercial,a
tennis complex (in public)and park,the Boys Club and YWCA.
A number of the lots to the east,zoned 0-3,are undeveloped
at this time.
The existing 0-3 lots within the subdivision have a very
involved history and some of it appears to be relevant to
the case before the Commission.
1984 —Some of the lots were rezoned to 0-2
and the reclassification created a very
undesirable zoning configuration.Staff
recommended denial and there was strong
neighborhood opposition.
1
April 21,1992
ITEM NO.:C Z-5548 Cont.
1988 —The entire area was rezoned to 0-3
with certain conditions.Again,staff was
opposed to the action and some of the
objections were raised by a neighbor.
With both requests,staff felt that office zoning was
misplaced and would have an adverse impact on the single
family lots.
The current 0-3 request for 6207 Northmoor raises the same
issues as the previous office rezonings south of Northmoor,
and staff is opposed to the proposed 0-3 reclassification.
Staff has always viewed Northmoor as a desirable zoning line
between residential and nonresidential zoning.The lots
south of Northmoor were platted for single family
residences,which the staff still believes is the most
appropriate use for the land.
Even with the 0-3 zoning of the lots,the Boyle ParkDistrictplanwasneveramendedandallthelotsare
identified for single family use,including the one under
consideration.An 0-3 reclassification will violate the
plan and is not necessary for the proposed use because the
daycare center is a conditional use in the R-4 district.
(For informational purposes only —the Bill of Assurancerestrictstheuseoflotstosinglefamilyresidencesand is
in effect until the year of 2002.To amend the Bill of
Assurance,70%of the property owners must sign a written
instrument.)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the 0-3 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 10,1992)
The applicant,David Simmons,was present.There were two
objectors in attendance.Mr.Simmons addressed the
Commission and said that all of the notice requirements have
been met.He continued by discussing the 0-3 request and
indicated that a daycare was the immediate use,with the
long term use being an office or lab.Mr.Simmons said the
2
April 21,1992
ITEM NO.:C Z-5548 Cont.
existing single family residences face Cleveland,and there
would be no increase in traffic from the proposed uses.
Mr.Simmons then presented some photos and said that he has
talked with several of the neighbors.
Carolyn Lewis,one of the owners,said the rezoning was for
a daycare and the possible expansion of the existingclinic/office use.Ms.Lewis asked that the 0-3 be approved
and told the Commission that a daycare was needed.
Jeffery Hampton,adjacent owner to the south,said the
owners of the property in question have the neighborhood's
best interest in mind,and it was difficult to locate a
quality daycare.Mr.Hampton expressed his support for the
rezoning and made some additional comments.
Billy Williams,Bittersweet Drive,objected to the O-3 and
presented a petition with 56 signatures opposed to the
rezoning.Mr.Williams said the office zoning would create
problems for the neighborhood and the existing clinic has
increased traffic.He then discussed the history of the
area and said major traffic problems have been created
because of recent developments.Mr.Williams concluded by
saying that housing values have decreased because of other
nonresidential rezonings.
Warren Campbell,1311 South Cleveland,told the Commission
that the rezoning would destroy another neighborhood and
could start a cycle of deterioration.Mr.Campbell said thelotlacksthenecessaryareaforadequateparking,and
there was vacant office property in the immediate vicinity.
Mr.Campbell concluded by saying the homeowners stand toloseandaskedtheCommissiontodenytherequest.
David Simmons spoke again and discussed other zoning options
for the property.Mr.Simmons responded to some of the
objections raised by the neighbors and said the clinic did
not generate a lot of traffic.
There was long discussion about utilizing a design review
process for the property and amending the request to a PUD.
After some additional comments,David Simmons requested adeferral.
A motion was made to defer the issue to the April 21,1992
meeting.The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 nays,0 absent and 1 abstention (Ramsay Ball).
3
April 21,1992
ITEM NO.:C Z-5548 Cont.
PLANNING CO S ON (APRIL 21,1992)
The applicant,David Simmons,was present.There were four
objectors in attendance.Staff reported that the request
has been amended from 0-3 to POD and indicated basic supportforaveryrestrictivePOD.
David Simmons addressed the Commission and said that the
appearance of the residence would not change if the POD was
approved.Mr.Simmons went on to say that the owners want
the ability to utilize the property for office/clinic
related uses.
Billy Williams,6110 Bittersweet,submitted a petition with
95 signatures opposed to any use other than residential.
Mr.Williams made some comments about parking and said there
was strong opposition to any reclassification.
Pat Campbell,1311 South Cleveland,spoke against the
request and said she was concerned with the neighborhood's
future.Ms.Campbell discussed the parking and the
direction the neighborhood was going.She told the
Commission that traffic congestion was a problem and
expressed concerns with a possibility of a medical lab.
Ms.Campbell then asked the Commission to vote to deny the
request.
David Simmons made some additional comments about traffic
and parking.Mr.Simmons indicated that the existing
problems were created by North Cleveland.He also said that
no patients would utilize the residence.
Billy Williams commented on the Northmoor driveway being
changed.
Verdia Hence discussed the petition and traffic circulation.
Stephen Giles,Assistant City Attorney,addressed theBillofAssuranceissue.
There was a long discussion and staff again voiced its
support for the amended POD.
A motion was made to recommend approval of the POD as
amended.The vote was 3 ayes,6 nays,1 absent and
1 abstention (Ramsay Ball).The motion failed and the
request was denied.
4
April 21,1992
ITEM NO.:D Z-5557
NAME:Harris —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:3001 West 65th Street
OWNER APPLIC T:Arian Harris
PROPOSAL:A Conditional Use Permit is
requested to allow use of the
property for a bookstore.
ORDINANC IGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
Located at the intersection of West 65th Street and Murray
Road approximately 150 feet.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
The site is compatible with the neighborhood.Surrounding
the site is a mixture of uses from commercial to industrial.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
There exist three on-site drives to the site,one off of
Murray Road and two off of West 65th Street.The applicant
plans to meet the parking requirements.
4.Screenin and Suffers
There will have to be new landscaping in order to meet the
Ordinance requirement.
5.Cit En ineer Comments
There are none to be reported.
6.ilail1
The proposal before the Commission is for an adult
bookstore.Presently,the applicant has one bookstore in
the area,but will have to relocate in order to meet the new
Ordinance requirement for uses of this type.
The business will be private and will require a membership
to enter.No one under 18 years of age will be given a
membership card.There will be books,video tapes and gaggiftspertainingtosexuallyorientedmaterial.There also
will be booths for viewing of tapes.Staff feels that this
location of the business is a more compatible area than the
1
April 21,1992
I NO.:D Z-5557 Cont.
existing location.Zoned I-2 Light Industrial,this use is
permitted as a Conditional Use Permit.The site at one time
was a service station and has been vacant for a number of
years.The expansion of the existing structure along with
the other City requirements will help to restore a much
needed area.
7.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit
subject to the landscaping requirements being met and the
paving and stripping of the parking areas.
SUBDIVISIO COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 19,1992)
The applicant was in attendance.Staff gave an overview of the
applicant's request.No additional discussion took place.This
item was sent on to the full Commission for action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 7,1992)
The applicant was in attendance.There was one person present in
opposition to the Conditional Use Permit,Charles Q.Hinkel,who
is a local division manager for NAPA.
Mr.Hinkel was asked to speak first before the Commission.He
stated that he needed some clarification.Mr.Hinkel stated that
when the gentleman (the applicant)came by the store,he was not
there.He asked if the Harris Bookstore is to be an adult
bookstore.The Chairman responded by saying that was his
understanding.Mr.Hinkel then stated as a representative of
NAPA,Inc.he was at the meeting to object.He explained there
were two primary reasons for attending the hearing:(a)This
type of use would be detrimental to the property values in the
area and (b)would be a serious threat to the retail customers
which now frequent the parts store,just because of the
reputation associated with adult bookstores.
A commissioner asked Mr.Hinkel where was the NAPA property
located in relation to the bookstore.Mr.Hinkel stated that
NAPA is located next door at 6519 South Murray,which is to the
south.
Stephen Giles,Assistant City Attorney,was asked to explain the
Ordinance regarding closing down the adult bookstores in the
city.Mr.Giles stated that the City started to allow certain
adult business uses to be located within designated areas of the
City at the end of an amortization period under a separate city
ordinance.With this action,the City deemed certain areas to be
more appropriate for these businesses to operate and away from
2
April 21,1992
TEM NO.D Z-5557 Cont.
the residential areas or close to occupied structures.
Mr.Harris has looked around the City and found one such
available site,zoned industrial,on which to relocate.
Mr.Giles explained that the intent of the Ordinance is to
protect residential areas,historic districts,and things which
are very sensitive to these types of intrusions that can occur
through commercial development.The City has spent a lot of time
and effort in identifying available areas.The City may not
constitutionally close a business and prevent it from relocating
anywhere in the City without paying for it.The City is
currently in litigation with the applicant and others concerning
the constitutionality of the Ordinance.He stated that this
application is a good faith effort on the part of the applicant
and City to reach some type of agreement for a location which is
not egregious to the surrounding area.However,to locate in
this zone the Ordinance requires conditional use review.
A board member then asked if there were zones which would allow
this use by right.Staff stated yes,C-2 or C-3 would allow a
bookstore,but not one of this type.Mr.Giles stated that
because of the spacing requirements of the Ordinance,these
particular types of businesses have a much harder task in finding
a location when compared to a typical bookstore,which would not
have the separation requirement as the one before the Commission.
Mr.Giles further stated that unless this application is totally
incompatible with the surrounding area and found to be
detrimental to the properties,then staff's position is approval
of the land use.It should not be the position of the Commission
to sit in judgment of this use.
Arian Harris,the applicant then addressed the Commission.He
stated that all he was doing was checking the Ordinance.The
Ordinance says the adult bookstore can be located on this site,
and he is trying to do so.
Staff stated since the application is for a conditional use
permit,then the Commission can place conditions on the approval
if Mr.Harris and Mr.Hinkel can reach some kind of an agreement.
For example,the hours of operation or parking or signage could
be restricted.
A board member then asked what percentage of the Sign Ordinance
applies in industrial zoning?One of the historic things with
this type of business is to paint the side of the wall.Can any
assurance be given as to the amount of signage which will be on
the site?
Mr.Harris stated that he is making an investment.He has a
tenant,and the City is forcing this person to move.Therefore,
he is making the investment to move the tenant.The signage
(on 65th Street)would not be any different from the one down
the street.Mr.Harris stated all that is happening is the
3
April 21,1992
ITEM NO.:D Z-5557 Cont.
one down the street is moving to this location in order to comply
with the Ordinance.The business is already in existence.A
board member then asked Mr.Harris if he was the owner or
applicant?Mr.Harris stated he was the one applying for the
use.He also stated he was testing the Ordinance.The City said
in federal court that an adult bookstore could be located on this
site and he was trying to find out.
Staff stated that signage in industrial districts is less than in
other districts.Mr.Harris stated there is one little square
sign at the present location.It is probably 3 feet tall and
2 feet wide.There will be no painting on the sides of the
building.Mr.Harris was asked if he would be willing to amend
his application to state there will be a low key sign and none on
the building facade.Mr.Harris stated he had no problem with
the amendment.
Mr.Hinkel addressed the Board again.He stated that to allow
this use would be very detrimental to the business because of the
type of clientele this type of use caters to.A commission
member asked Mr.Hinkel what type of customer frequented his
store?Mr.Hinkel stated the typical customer is male between
the ages of 18 to 55 which is about 804 of the business.
Approximately,35%of the total walk in trade would be women
between the ages of 20 to 40 years old.
A board member asked if this was going to be new construction and
what would be the separation between the two businesses?Staff
stated that the site has an existing building.Mr.Harris plans
to enlarge this structure and put in landscaping and parking.
Bob Brown then stated,"Since the new construction is so much,
the Landscape Ordinance would apply 100%".There is
approximately 20 feet of separation between the two buildings.
The Chairman then ended the public hearing and more discussion
took place between the Commission and applicant.A commissioner
asked Mr.Harris what would be the hours of operation.
Mr.Harris stated that presently the hours are 24 hours a day.
However,he would be willing to reduce them if the application is
approved.
Stephen Giles then asked the commissioners if they were aware
of the ramifications of approval or denial.He explained the
application is really the focal point of the lawsuit against
the City.The applicant and other parties are challenging the
City by using the new Ordinance.They feel the intent of the
ordinance is to run this type of use out of the city.The City'
whole position throughout the lawsuit has been that there are
other locations within the city where this use can relocate.
This particular site is a suitable place within the allowed zoned
areas in the city.It may be that the court will review a denial
of this application to uphold Mr.Harris'awsuit.If that
happens,the Ordinance would be rendered unconstitutional and the
business would be allowed to stay where it is presently located.
4
April 21,1992
ITEM NO.:D Z-5557 Cont.
Several commissioners gave their opinions regarding the
application.Those opinions ranged from (1)there are other
areas in the city for this type of use which would be more
acceptable,(2)the Commission has a right to take a closer lookattheapplicationregardlessofwhattheCityandfederalcourt
have decided,(3)can the applicant get an extension if the
application is denied?(4)the type of zoning,and (5)how long
has the property been vacant?
The Chairman then called for the pleasure of the Board.A motion
was made to accept the amended application restricting the
signage and facade.The motion died by a vote of 4 ayes,4 noes
and 3 absent.Due to the item not receiving six votes to approve
or deny,it was automatically deferred to the April 21,1992
meeting as required by the bylaws.
PLANN NG CO ISSION ACTION:(APRIL 21,1992)
The applicant was in attendance.There were no objectors
present.The Chairman asked of the commission members if they
had any new comments or questions regarding this item.One
commissioner stated that she would like for the applicant to
agree to the type of signage that will be on the site.
The applicant stated that he would agree to whatever the
Commission felt was necessary.Presently,on the site down
the street with the same use,there is a sign 3 feet by 2 feet.
A commission member again suggested to other commissioners thatthisConditionalUsePermitbelimitedtoacertaintypeof
signage.
Mr.Harris then stated a sign 3 feet by 4 feet would be adequateforthebusiness.There will not be any signage on the side
walls.
A motion was then made to approve the Conditional Use Permit
conditioned upon the sign being 3 feet by 4 feet with no
signage on the side walls.The motion passed by a vote of
10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
5
April 21,1992
ITEM NO.:1 Z-5553
owner:Frances May and Joseph H.Red
Applicant:Joseph H.Red
Location:6608 Baseline Road
Request:Rezone from R-2 to C-3
Purpose:Retail Sales of Auto Parts
Size:1.16 acres
Existing Use:Single-Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Single-Family,zoned R-2
South —Vacant,zoned R-2
East —Single-Family and Office,zoned R-2 and 0-3
West —Single-Family and Office,zoned R-2 and 0-3
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone 6608 Baseline Road
from R-2 to C-3 for the sale of auto parts.The property is
situated on the north side of Baseline Road,and approximately
one-half mile west of Geyer Springs Road.At this time,there is
one single family residence on the site;a second residential
unit was removed several years ago.The location in question has
a 164 feet of frontage on Baseline and a depth of 309 feet.
Zoning in the general area is R-2,R-5,0-3,C-1 and C-3,with
the property abutting R-2 and 0-3.Over the last several years,
there has been no zoning activity in the immediate vicinity.The
most recent rezoning,R-2 to 0-3,was accomplished in 1985 and it
involved land to the east of Oman Road.Land use includes single
family,multifamily,office,commercial,churches and some schoolfacilities.Across Baseline Road,there is a large tract of
land,40 acres,as currently vacant and owned by the City ofLittleRock.The site is the future location of the "Southwest
Community Complex".
The plan for the neighborhood,Geyer Springs West,identifies
the southern one-half of the property for office use and the
remaining area as single family.Therefore,the proposed C-3isinconflictwiththeadoptedplanandstaffdoesnot
support the requested commercial reclassification.The Geyer
1
April 21,1992
ITEM NO.1 Z-5553 Cont
Springs West plan shows an office area along the north side ofBaselinefromtheR-5 to just west of the C-3 at Verbena.Staff feels that the recommended land use is the most
appropriate for the location and should be reinforced by
denying the C-3 rezoning.Approving a C-3 zoning for
6608 Baseline Road could lead to a strip commercial pattern
along Baseline,something the City tries to discourage,and
could have an adverse impact on the surrounding residentialproperties.Over the years,the staff has not endorsed any
commercial zoning in the area,including a CUP for an auto
use on the C-3 at Verbena,and our position has not changed
with the current request.(The existing C-3 at the northwestcornerofBaselineandVerbenawasaccomplishedin1980asa
conversion adjustment for an existing laboratory.)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMM NDATION
Staff recommends denial of the C-3 rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 21,1992)
The owners were represented by Marcelle Cherry.There were noobjectorsinattendance.Ms.Cherry spoke and said there was a
buyer for the property,and the proposed use was retail sales of
auto parts.She went on to say that the new owner wouldconstructanewbuilding,approximately 8,100 square feet,and
conform to all the necessary city codes.Ms.Cherry said that
the new development would be good for the area.
There was a long discussion about the request.Marcelle Cherry
responded to comments made by several commissioners,and saidtherewasverylittledifferencebetweenacommercialuseand anoffice.
After some additional remarks,a motion was made to recommend
approval of C-3.The vote was 5 ayes,4 nays and 2 absent.The
item was deferred until the May 19,1992 meeting because offailingtoreceivesixpositiveornegativevotes.
2
April 21,1992
ITEM NO.:2 Z-5556
Owner:Melody Parsley
Applicant:Melody Parsley
Location:Southwest Corner of Crystal
Valley Road and Colonel Carl
Miller Road
Request:Rezone from R-2 to AF
Purpose:Single-Family and Agriculture
Size:46.5 acres
Existing Use:Single-Family and Agriculture
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Vacant,zoned R-2
South —Vacant,zoned R-2
East —Single-Family,zoned AF and 0-3
West —Single-Family,zoned R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
The property in question,46.5 acres,is located in Area II,the Crystal Valley District,and the request is to rezone thesitefromR-2 to AF.The use of the land will remain single
family and agriculture.The site has frontage on both
Crystal Valley and Colonel Carl Miller Road.According tothehasemap,there is a creek that crosses the site and some
wetland lands on the property.
Land use in the general vicinity is primarily single familyresidencesonlargetracts.Other uses found in the area
include a church,mini-warehouse units and several auto
related use,including auto repair and storage.At this
time,a high percentage of land is still undeveloped.ThecurrentzoningisR-2,0-3,AF and PCD.All of thereclassificationswereaccomplishedthroughtherecent AreaIIzoningeffortandthePCDsareforexistinguses.
The adopted plan for this part of Area II shows open space,single family and office uses for the 46 acres under
consideration.Reclassifying the site to AF is not asignificantvariationfromtheplan's overall direction,and
should not have any impact on the surrounding properties.
The southeast corner of Crystal Valley and Colonel Carl
1
April 21,1992
ITEM NO.:6 Cont.
Miller Road is zoned AF and 0-3.Therefore,approval of the
requested AF will duplicate the other corner and conform to
an accepted zoning pattern for the area.And finally,staff
views AF zoning to be very similar to the recommended single
family and open space designations shown on the adopted plan.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the AF rezoning as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 21,1992)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors in
attendance and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda.
A motion was made to recommend approval of AF as filed.
The motion was approved by a vote of 10 eyes,0 nays and
1 absent.
2
April 21,1992
ITEM NO '
hRRLXGhHT:Dell Rich —Capitol Keyboard PCD
(Z-5178-B)
LOCATION:13401 Chenal Parkway at Old Town
Road Intersection Southwest Corner
~RE VER:To amend the permitted use group.
STAFF REPORT:
Dell Rich,the proprietor of Capitol Keyboard,requests the
Planning Commission extend to this PCD an approval of the
community theater shows in one of the rooms.The communitytheaterhasfourshowsannuallyandhaverequestedtheCapitol
Keyboard facility for only three of these shows.Each show has
only six or seven performances over a two week period with each
performance averaging 50 to 75 people in the audience.TheseactivitieswillbeheldintheeveningsandonSundays.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff's view of this proposal is that this use is
appropriate for the place and type of activities.We suggest
the applicant notify all adjoining property owners and provide
a schedule of the theater performances for staff's file.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 21/1992)
There were no objectors present.The Chairman asked the staff to
present its recommendation.Richard Wood of the staff offered abriefoverviewofthehistoryofthisproposedactivityon-site.
He stated,on one occasion during 1991,the Community Theater
performed a series of shows at this location under enforcementnoticebytheZoningEnforcementstaff.The owner of the
property was instructed that the remedy was a revision of his
Planned Commercial District.The owner was unable to file the
application until March of this year,therefore,creating a
problem for the Community Theater.Wood pointed out that staff
had administratively approved the first performance for this year
with the revised Planned Commercial District to allow later
performances during 1992.
Wood described the site and indicated that there should not be a
parking problem on or about the site since there are 33 parkingspacesonCapitolKeyboard's development area.Within a oneblockradiusofthesite,there are four commercial businesses inplacewhichareclosedafternormalbusinesshoursandon
weekends.This could provide the necessary numbers of stalls to
provide for the 50 to 75 people average performance.
1
April 21,1992
IT NO.:3 Cont.OTHER MATTERS
Wood also pointed out that there has been no objection reported
by any of the adjacent owners or business occupants to this
proposal.A certified mail notice was delivered to each of the
property owners within 200 feet.Wood indicated that staff's
recommendation was approval of the change as requested with the
commitment to the number of performances as outlined in the
proposal of the applicant.
Commissioner Oleson then raised the question,"During the time
that the Commission approved the original PCD,was there not also
included in the application approval for recitals and events of
that nature?".Wood's response was in the affirmative.He
pointed out that the structure was constructed for this kind of
activity,and a limited amount of recitals and demonstration
activity was included in the approval.He also responded to thelatterpartofherquestionandstatedthatthisusewasnot
included within the original PCD.
The Chairman asked if there were interested parties here today
either for or against the proposal.Mr.Drake Mann identified
himself as the spokesperson for the Community Theater.Mr.Mann
presented a brief presentation.He identified several persons
with him in the audience,specifically Kathy Hayden.Mr.Mann
made a statement that although the staff report presented to the
Committee accurately reflect their past activity,it is not
adequate to cover the proposal which they now are presenting to
the Commission.He indicated that it was there hope that the
audience size would increase as they attract larger audiences.
He indicated their hope was to increase their attendance from
75 to 100 people per performance.Additionally,he stated that
the two week period would be extended to perhaps a three week
period with better performances.Commissioner Oleson then
pointed out to Mr.Mann that the number may change and asked,
"How was it presented in the amendment to staff or was it,infact,written in the amendment?"
Richard Wood stated that he did not feel like the staff would
place a maximum number on the performances because it was his
understanding the performing area was limited to a total of
200 people by the fire marshal,both performers and audience.
He felt like there was already a built limit to the number of
persons for each performance.Additionally,Wood stated thatstaffwouldbeguidedbythenumberofperformancesandthetime
frame which the applicant identifies.
Mr.Mann then pointed out that the staff report accuratelyreflectedthatthreeoftheirfourannualshowswouldbe
conducted at the Capitol Keyboard site.He indicated that
although they now reflect 6 to 7 performances over a two week
period.In the application as presented today,there hope is
that the performances would be increased to ten or so over a
three week period.Mr.Mann indicated that he would make that
amendment to the application and offer it to the Commission at
this time.He expanded on his comment to say that he had nothing
2
April 21,1992
ITEN O.:3 Cont.OTHER NATTERS
more to add to the average number of audience at the
performances,except to say that they wish to increase the
attendance.He indicated that he did not have advanced bookings
or numbers on which to rely.He stated that the appeal of his
shows would actually dictate the number of persons which would
attend.
The Chairman then asked staff if they had any problems with the
amendment as now presented.Richard Wood of staff indicated they
did not.
The Chairman then called the question on the issue as amended.
The amendment to place no limitation except the physical
limitation on the attendance within the auditorium.A limitation
that only three shows per year be conducted at this facility with
ten performances over a three period for each show.TheactivitiestobeheldintheeveningsandonSundays.The motion
was then put to a vote.A show of hands reflected that the
application passed by a 8 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
3
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD
DATE ~ca,.=nb P~~&lat-
MEMBER 2.C
BALL,RAMSEY 'v Ap 8 ~
CHACHERE,DIANE A A A 4 A 4 A
WILLIS,EMMETT v,v'v
MCDANIEL,JOHN v v v v
NICHOLSON,JERILYN v ~~v ~v
OLESON,KATHLEEN v-y ~~v 0
VONTUNGELN,JIM ~4 v ~y
PUTNAM,BILL v ~v v v
WOODS,RONALD s v ~
SELZ,JOE H.~v v v
WALKER,BRAD v ~H AA
TIME IN AND TIME OUT
BALL,RAMSEY
CHACHERE,DIANE
WILLIS,EMMETT
MCDANIEL,JOHN
NICHOLSON,JERILYN )Z;3+i/a n v wi co se aq nba
OLESON,KATHLEEN
VONTUNGELN,JIM
PUTNAM,BILL
WOODS,RONALD $Z.'37 &A a v a can se.n acI ada
SELZ,JOE H.
WALKER,BRAD f2;3Q lhl 5 a v W ~&se'n ~nda —~2:
I
I AYE
'NAYE A ABSENT ~ABSTAIN
April 21,1992
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
Date
ore Chaw n